Parliamentary CHOGM probe: Will guilty parties pay for their crimes?
Apr 30, 2010
AFTER months of intense grilling of over 100 government officials over the mismanagement of the Commonwealth summit funds, the probe has wound up.
By Mary Karugaba
AFTER months of intense grilling of over 100 government officials over the mismanagement of the Commonwealth summit funds, the probe has wound up.
Public accounts committee members who have been carrying out the probe say the report has been drafted.
However, it has not been released because of the delay tactics of some ministers, who keep rescheduling meetings.
The probe was commissioned by President Yoweri Museveni after billions of shillings went missing following CHOGM. Although Parliament allocated sh270b to the summit, the Auditor General discovered that more than sh370b was spent.
The figure further rose to sh500b after grilling those who spent the funds. Shockingly, the figure is expected to rise further after some ministries complete their payments to contractors.
Several permanent secretaries interrogated claimed they had acted on orders from “aboveâ€. “What did you want me to do? You have a Vice-President, ministers directing you?â€
Charles Muganzi, the works ministry permanent secretary, told the committee.
The Vice-President, Prof. Gilbert Bukenya, as the chairman of the Cabinet sub-committee on CHOGM, was accused of influence peddling in the sh19b CHOGM car deal.
It was reported that the he halted the competitive procurement method for the direct one.
Bukenya was summoned by the committee to explain the change.
However, after Cabinet consultations and on the advice of the Attorney General, Kiddu Makubuya, it was ruled that the committee could not summon the VP.
This infuriated the MPs, who said they would write their report without Bukenya’s testimony. Days later, Bukenya wrote to the Speaker asking the committee to go to his office.
The MPs declined, saying Bukenya should have requested them directly for another hearing. He then wrote to them asking them to choose a date and place. The committee accused him of being slippery and ended their dealings with him.
Days later, security minister Amama Mbabazi, who had also declined to appear, agreed to do so after a number of correspondences. He argued that he wanted the committee to state why it needed to meet him.
When he appeared, the debate shifted from accountability on how his ministry spent sh10b that was diverted from the e-government loan project, to politics.
The battle was between Mbabazi and Lwemiyaga MP Theodore Ssekikubo, his rival for the post of NRM Secretary General. Mbabazi accused Ssekikubo of being a mercenary, because he was not a member of the committee.
(Ssekikubo is a co-opted member). After the bitter exchange, the PAC chairman, Nandala told Mbabazi that procurement procedures had been ignored.
Mbabazi was not the only one who clashed with the committee.
The Minister for the Presidency, Beatrice Wabudeya, clashed with Mafabi. Wabudeya initially refused to appear before him, citing conflict of interest and fearing that she would be treated unfairly. Wabudeya plans to run against Mafabi in the 2011 elections.
Mafabi said he would not let any other person to execute his mandate, but assured her of a fair hearing.
“This meeting is about accountability. The information we have is documented,†he remarked.
The bad blood between foreign affairs minister Sam Kutesa and Ssekikubo also manifested during the probe.
The minister objected to Sekikubo’s presence arguing that he had judged him harshly before the probe.
These fights may spill over into the House if the report is presented for debate, especially when the committee comes up with recommendations pinning down the big names.
The committee is watching against members who want to come up with a minority report to discredit its work.
Sources on the committee say, there are four MPs from the committee demanding for the draft report “so they can discuss it.â€
In response, Mafabi said: “Our recommendations are going to be as clear as possible, based on the documents and evidence provided during the investigations.â€
As with previous parliamentary probes, the public already doubts if this one will have any effect on big wigs who might be implicated in wrongdoing. There is also skepticism on whether any action will be taken against those officials implicated.
Cissy Kagaba, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Coalition of Uganda, a civil society organisation fighting graft, argues that it is useless to make recommendations without implementing them. She fears that many members will protect their colleagues ahead of the 2011 elections, rendering the recommendations ineffective.
“Yes, the recommendations will be made but like other commissions of inquiry we, the civil society, does not expect much from the CHOGM probe. But let’s give them the benefit of doubt,†she says.
Diana Aletiru, the communications manager Transparency Uganda, says: “I believe the report, but my problem is the action by Parliament thereafter. My wish is that Parliament, apart from digging out facts, orders the arrest of the wrongdoers.â€
In his New Year’s address, President Museveni vowed to punish government officials found guilty of stealing CHOGM funds.
“The success of CHOGM notwithstanding, I do not condone the action of those public officials who abused procedures and mismanaged any resources allocated to them for the event,†Museveni stated.
As it emerged from the probe, procurement for road works, vehicles and other services was flawed. The bottom line remains that lost funds need to be recovered.
AFTER months of intense grilling of over 100 government officials over the mismanagement of the Commonwealth summit funds, the probe has wound up.
Public accounts committee members who have been carrying out the probe say the report has been drafted.
However, it has not been released because of the delay tactics of some ministers, who keep rescheduling meetings.
The probe was commissioned by President Yoweri Museveni after billions of shillings went missing following CHOGM. Although Parliament allocated sh270b to the summit, the Auditor General discovered that more than sh370b was spent.
The figure further rose to sh500b after grilling those who spent the funds. Shockingly, the figure is expected to rise further after some ministries complete their payments to contractors.
Several permanent secretaries interrogated claimed they had acted on orders from “aboveâ€. “What did you want me to do? You have a Vice-President, ministers directing you?â€
Charles Muganzi, the works ministry permanent secretary, told the committee.
The Vice-President, Prof. Gilbert Bukenya, as the chairman of the Cabinet sub-committee on CHOGM, was accused of influence peddling in the sh19b CHOGM car deal.
It was reported that the he halted the competitive procurement method for the direct one.
Bukenya was summoned by the committee to explain the change.
However, after Cabinet consultations and on the advice of the Attorney General, Kiddu Makubuya, it was ruled that the committee could not summon the VP.
This infuriated the MPs, who said they would write their report without Bukenya’s testimony. Days later, Bukenya wrote to the Speaker asking the committee to go to his office.
The MPs declined, saying Bukenya should have requested them directly for another hearing. He then wrote to them asking them to choose a date and place. The committee accused him of being slippery and ended their dealings with him.
Days later, security minister Amama Mbabazi, who had also declined to appear, agreed to do so after a number of correspondences. He argued that he wanted the committee to state why it needed to meet him.
When he appeared, the debate shifted from accountability on how his ministry spent sh10b that was diverted from the e-government loan project, to politics.
The battle was between Mbabazi and Lwemiyaga MP Theodore Ssekikubo, his rival for the post of NRM Secretary General. Mbabazi accused Ssekikubo of being a mercenary, because he was not a member of the committee.
(Ssekikubo is a co-opted member). After the bitter exchange, the PAC chairman, Nandala told Mbabazi that procurement procedures had been ignored.
Mbabazi was not the only one who clashed with the committee.
The Minister for the Presidency, Beatrice Wabudeya, clashed with Mafabi. Wabudeya initially refused to appear before him, citing conflict of interest and fearing that she would be treated unfairly. Wabudeya plans to run against Mafabi in the 2011 elections.
Mafabi said he would not let any other person to execute his mandate, but assured her of a fair hearing.
“This meeting is about accountability. The information we have is documented,†he remarked.
The bad blood between foreign affairs minister Sam Kutesa and Ssekikubo also manifested during the probe.
The minister objected to Sekikubo’s presence arguing that he had judged him harshly before the probe.
These fights may spill over into the House if the report is presented for debate, especially when the committee comes up with recommendations pinning down the big names.
The committee is watching against members who want to come up with a minority report to discredit its work.
Sources on the committee say, there are four MPs from the committee demanding for the draft report “so they can discuss it.â€
In response, Mafabi said: “Our recommendations are going to be as clear as possible, based on the documents and evidence provided during the investigations.â€
As with previous parliamentary probes, the public already doubts if this one will have any effect on big wigs who might be implicated in wrongdoing. There is also skepticism on whether any action will be taken against those officials implicated.
Cissy Kagaba, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Coalition of Uganda, a civil society organisation fighting graft, argues that it is useless to make recommendations without implementing them. She fears that many members will protect their colleagues ahead of the 2011 elections, rendering the recommendations ineffective.
“Yes, the recommendations will be made but like other commissions of inquiry we, the civil society, does not expect much from the CHOGM probe. But let’s give them the benefit of doubt,†she says.
Diana Aletiru, the communications manager Transparency Uganda, says: “I believe the report, but my problem is the action by Parliament thereafter. My wish is that Parliament, apart from digging out facts, orders the arrest of the wrongdoers.â€
In his New Year’s address, President Museveni vowed to punish government officials found guilty of stealing CHOGM funds.
“The success of CHOGM notwithstanding, I do not condone the action of those public officials who abused procedures and mismanaged any resources allocated to them for the event,†Museveni stated.
As it emerged from the probe, procurement for road works, vehicles and other services was flawed. The bottom line remains that lost funds need to be recovered.